I'm curious about everyones practices when it comes to using or distributing libraries for an application that you write.
First of all, when developing your application do you link the debug or release version of the libraries? (For when you run your application in debug mode)
Then when you run your app in release mode just before deploying, which build of the libraries do you use?
How do you perform the switch between your debug and release version of the libraries? Do you do it manually, do you use macros, or whatever else is it that you do?
I would first determine what requirements are needed from the library:
Debug/Release
Unicode support
And so on..
With that determined you can then create configurations for each combination required by yourself or other library users.
When compiling and linking it is very important that you keep that libraries and executable consistent with respect to configurations used i.e. don't mix release & debug when linking.
I know on the Windows/VS platform this can cause subtle memory issues if debug & release libs are mixed within an executable.
As Brian has mentioned to Visual Studio it's best to use the Configuration Manager to setup how you want each configuration you require to be built.
For example our projects require the following configurations to be available depending on the executable being built.
Debug+Unicode
Debug+ASCII
Release+Unicode
Release+ASCII
The users of this particular project use the Configuration Manager to match their executable requirements with the project's available configurations.
Regarding the use of macros, they are used extensively in implementing compile time decisions for requirements like if the debug or release version of a function is to be linked. If you're using VS you can view the pre-processor definitions attribute to see how the various macros are defined e.g. _DEBUG _RELEASE, this is how the configuration controls whats compiled.
What platform are you using to compile/link your projects?
EDIT: Expanding on your updated comment..
If the Configuration Manager option is not available to you then I recommend using the following properties from the project:
Linker->Additional Library Directories or Linker->Input
Use the macro $(ConfigurationName) to link with the appropriate library configuration e.g. Debug/Release.
$(ProjectDir)\..\third-party-prj\$(ConfigurationName)\third-party.lib
Build Events or Custom Build Step configuration property
Execute a copy of the required library file(s) from the dependent project prior (or after) to the build occurring.
xcopy $(ProjectDir)\..\third-party-prj\$(ConfigurationName)\third-party.dll $(IntDir)
The macro $(ProjectDir) will be substituted for the current project's location and causes the operation to occur relative to the current project.
The macro $(ConfigurationName) will be substituted for the currently selected configuration (default is Debug or Release) which allows the correct items to be copied depending on what configuration is being built currently.
If you use a regular naming convention for your project configurations it will help, as you can use the $(ConfigurationName) macro, otherwise you can simply use a fixed string.
I use VS. The way that I do it is that the libraries I need through the references of the project. Which basically just says in what folder to look for a specific library at project load time. I develop my libraries to be as project independent or reusable as possible. Therefore they are all projects of their own. So of the libraries that I need for a specific project, I create a "3rdParty" or "libs" folder at the same level as my "src" folder in my svn folder tree. I tend to only use released libraries, but when I get some unknown issues and want to switch to debug, I manually copy a debug version of the files in the "lib" folder and reload the project.
I am unsure wether I should be keeping both debug and released versions in my svn tree. Although since they are projects of their own, keeping them in the svn tree of another project doesn't right. They can be built again without an hitch at any moment.
And then I wanted to find a way of making the switch more...hmmm...well basically automatic if you while, but that's not what I really mean. It just feels that switching the files manually between released and debug isn't right. Maybe I haven't found it yet, but what I would like is an option that would do like:
For library "stack.dll" look in "......\3rdParty\" for release and "......\3rdPartyD\" for debug.
Anything that those something like I don't know. What do you suggest?
Remember libraries are external projects. There the built files are totally elsewhere. In fact think of it as you have to check out another project, build it, and copy the built library if you want another copy. How would you set that up?
Related
So I really cant understand how this work but late me explain. First, just in case you need it, I am running Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit on a laptop.
As a building tool am using CMake. I want to load in to my project OpenCV, MRPT (http://www.mrpt.org/) and libfreenect. All of them have a "source code". What I don't understand is when they say "build from source". How to I make a project with all of them?
Do I need to build each one individually and with some way but then in my project OR do I down load the source code and build them all together at ones? As you can see I'm really confused what I have to do... do I run the CMakeList.txt from each source code and the run one CMakeList.txt that has all the other CMakeList.txt?
In fewer world, if I want to build from source, two or more libraries, how do I do that?
I would like a general answer (how this "build from source" works) and an answer specifically on the the ones I mentioned (CMake, OpenCV, MRPT, libfreenect). I hope I made clear what I don't really understand.
It depends of the 'master' project. In general in the c/c++ universe your project must know how to invoke the build process of each subproject/library OR your project needs to know how to include&link the results after building each external project yourself.
You can also mix the two approaches if needed but I think it cleaner to try to use one if possible.
In the first case if all the subprojects offer cmake building files (CMakeLists.txt) you may try to add_subdirectory() each and see if there are any conflicts. For example google test can be easily included this way and it gives your project some global variables that easy linking later.
Alternatively or if the above approach gives problems or the sub project doesn't provide CMakeLists.txt you can use ExternalProject_add(). It takes more work and you have to handle includes/linking configurations with your project manually but it makes the subproject more independent. For example if there are conflicting targets with your project or the subproject doesn't provide CMakeLists.txt.
The last approach involves building and installing the sub projects separately, using configuration variables in your project to point the includes/libraries paths of the sub project. Check CMake:How To Find Libraries for details.
Currently I am trying to figure out how to use Cocoapods. Many blogs quoted that Cocoapods is the best dependency management tool at present.
However, I am also using Gradle plugin for building my application.
Now the question is, can Gradle do the same dependency management for my private files & libraries (.a files) as Cocoapods.
Long story short (Jan. 2015):
Gradle: build system + dependency management.
Cocoapods: dependency management for Xcode internal builds.
There is probably more to this (for others that want to start commenting "but Cocoapods can also.."), but for a start that summarises it.
If you are new to iOS and/or Xcode you should probably not use a mixture of Gradle and Xcode as it adds extra complexity to an already complex build environment. If you are familiar with Gradle and you also (!) have some knowledge of Xcode, then I would recommend to use Gradle. Advantage? You have full control over your builds and it saves you from messing around in endless Xcode build-config-dialogs. On top you gain access to other repositories (maybe not that interesting for you) AND you can script your builds in a cross-platform environment. I also use a non-MacOS build server (Linux+Jenkins) which is able to interpret Gradle-build scripts, which is another plus.
If you want access to a versioning system other than git, you also gain access to that... when I type the lines right here, I wonder why I ever built an app without Gradle :-). I have even more things that come to my mind, now that I think about it: mixed programming-language builds (Java/C#/objC...), unit-test integration that does not require Xcode, easy reuse of build configurations from project to project ... .
Cocoapods is pretty much tied to Xcode, since it generates Xcode project files. The problem with Xcode is that it works best when it's building the app, not some external build system. I suppose it's possible to make a Gradle plugin that uses Cocoapods repositories with Gradle's Objective-C support, but I haven't seen anything like that.
We have a software package which is about 16 years old. It's gone through just about every version of Delphi (besides .NET ones). Over the years, things have become very confusing when it comes to cross-referencing and keeping proper setup for additional packages (like third-party libraries). I was wondering if there is some standard practice when it comes to keeping large projects (and groups of projects) like this organized.
So to explain the current setup...
This is a multi-application system. Meaning, there are 12 executable projects (and a few DLL and service projects) involved. We also keep things in SourceSafe and multiple developers work on the same code on different computers. All of these projects are more-so dumped into a central folder. The "Root" folder contains THE major EXE project (along with about 20 folders, all containing units and forms) and it almost seems like an endless hierarchy of folders and files. This one project alone has half a million lines of code involved.
Then all the additional applications aren't necessarily separated properly from this major project. Each of these projects has its own folder based in the main project's root.
The two major concerns of mine are:
How to properly set up the DCU files so that they aren't mixed in with the projects? DCU's should NOT be placed in the SourceSafe (and any similar file, for that matter) or otherwise, any file compiled from the project. Visual SourceSafe makes files read-only when they're not checked out, and DCU files (and EXE files and more) cannot be written to in this case. So how to properly separate any of such file to a remote location to avoid any mixture with the source code?
How to properly set up packages and libraries? We have the following:
QuickReports 5.05
NativeJpg library V302 -
Another anonymous reporting library
Our own component package, which requires QuickReports, NativeJpg, and the other anonymous library
All 4 of those libraries are stored in completely different places of each computer, and need some centralization. The biggest pain of setting up each new developer's computer is locating these from the lead developer's computer and copying them to the same place on each other computer (and making sure the library path is correct, etc.).
We also need to keep completely separate environments for different versions of Delphi on the same computer. This means a copy of the projects on each computer, a copy of packages and libraries on each computer, a copy of the projects and packages and libraries in the SourceSafe, etc. Each computer needs to have an identical setup. We already utilize environment variables to direct our projects where to look for certain project files (and libraries).
Another new concern: XE2 introduces 64bit capabilities. We don't plan on 64bit compiling yet, but we certainly will in the future. How do I properly differentiate 32bit from 64bit in all these projects?
What I'm really asking for is a reference to a good tutorial on how to optimize such an environment and keep it organized the best. I don't expect anyone to take the time and answer all this in the question. The projects are over 15 years old, have had the hands of 200+ developers from around the world in it, and has a LOT of cross-referencing between projects. For example, one project may use a unit from another project, and vice-versa. I personally don't like this concept, but I also didn't design it to begin with. I've been given the task to get this system organized and thoroughly documented how to set up Delphi on a new computer for new developers to work on our projects. As I'm looking at our projects (as I'm not necessarily a developer of the system, but am being pulled into development), I'm seeing a lot of confusion in how the code is organized.
I am assuming that possibly Embarcadero has some guidelines and standards on setting up such an environment?
Location of DCU files
Regarding the DCUs that are the output of the compilation process, you should specify a DCU output directory in each project file. The default value for this, in the latest version of Delphi would be fine: .\$(Platform)\$(Config). This results in sub-folders of the project directory like this: Win32\DEBUG or Win64\RELEASE.
If you set-up your project files using option sets then you will be able to control this setting (and all others) from a small number of option files.
Location of 3rd party code
You should always use 3rd party library as code. If the vendor charges more to receive the library as code, pay up. Once you have done so you simply include the source code into your version control system (VCS) and treat it largely the same way as you treat your own code. I say largely because you should avoid modifying it.
Once you have all your code in the VCS then you can put the entire source code onto a new machine with a single checkout operation.
Organisation of your projects
I personally have a strong aversion to using compiler search paths. I don't use them and include every unit that is required in a project in the .dpr file.
If you do use search paths then you make it impossible to work on variant projects.So for example, suppose you have a client that has discovered a bug in the version of the software you released 2 years ago. You would like to address that bug by releasing an upgrade to the 2 year old version of the software. It is perfectly plausible that asking them to upgrade to the latest version is not viable. Perhaps they have not paid for the upgrades. Perhaps the full upgrade has breaking changes that they do not want to tackle right now. A perfect example would be all the Delphi developers still using Delphi 7.
Now, having motivated the scenario, how would you create a build environment for the 2 year old project? If you are using search paths then they will refer to today's libraries. You would be forced to change your search path, or copy the old libraries over the top of today's libraries.
That entire headache is trivially side-stepped by not using search paths and by including all your source in the VCS.
What you should be aiming for is to be able to checkout any historic version of your program and have it build immediately. You should be able to do this with full confidence that you are building identical software to what was built at the time that version was released. This also requires you to have build automation but I can't imagine you are lacking that for a project of this size.
I'll address folder organisation. This comes from a software suite which has 50+ exe's and dll's and plenty third party libraries, so I guess I know where you are coming from...
We use Perforce as a source control system, so my default workspace's root folder is called Perforce, but I also have a couple of other workspaces set up and they are in Perforce2, Perforce3, etc.
General folder setup (starting from the workspace root folder)
General
Components
Delphi
Indy
Indy9
Indy10
MadCollection
v2.5.8.0
v2.6.0.0
Plugins
Releases
Released
... a folder for each release we publish ... (and equal to a branch in Perforce)
Work
Acceptance
Sub1
Sub2
My Environment library path in the IDE is empty (not even the BDE standard paths are in there). This ensures that a project's paths declare all path's needed and that projects are not reliant upon a particular machine's IDE setup.
We have an environment var (ie MRJ) set up in our IDE's that points to "General\Components\Delphi" so in a project's options we declare the paths to our components as $(MRJ)\MadCollection\2.6.0.0.
General holds IDE plugins and components used by our projects. We keep all versions we use in source control. That way when I have to switch back to an old release to track down a problem, I can simply pull it and build it as its library paths will still point to the version of the components that this specific release needs.
The organisation of folders in a particular work branch (Acceptance or one of its subbranches) follows this pattern:
General
Includes
MainComponent1
Project1
Project2
Shared
MainComponent2
Project3
Project4
Shared
Shared
Windows
SoftwareSuite
Scripts
Tools
MainComponent1
Project1
Dcus
Project2
Dcus
MainComponent2
Tools
Tool1
Dcus
Tool2
Dcus
The General folder holds all platform independent sources/files, the Windows folder holds all Windows specific files. Each component can hold multiple projects and will have a share folder for sources shared between those projects. The shared folder directly under General holds sources shared by all projects. The Windows folder is set up in a similar manner.
Note that each project has its own dcus folder. This is configured in the project options. As the path can be entered as .dcus, we (at least I) have this set up as the default for any new project. Each project sending its dcus to a unique folder ensures two things:
it is easy to keep dcu's out of version control by simply setting up a filter in your version control software.
more importantly it ensures that compilation/build of a project never interferes with the compilation/build of another project. I can safely change settings and build knowing that I won't be bothered by dcu's lying around from a previous build from another project.
I recommend the following practices:
Keep your library path simple, and make sure everything in the library path is either a folder that ships with delphi, or a DCU binary (library) folder in your d:\Components\ folder.
Use a MODERN type of version control. I recommend Mercurial over others. Source Safe is crap, stop using it.
Back up your environment (export registry keys etc) and restore it to the other developer PCs in a standardized way. You can keep a few .reg and .cmd (batch) files around to automate setup of a new system. you can put these scripts in your component repository in your version control system.
Outside the scope that was largely discuss before, I would recommend :
Unit testing - with DUnit for example
Continuous integration. Just to be sure that all these projects can compile on another machine and that tests are ok.
So this is heavily related to project organization and VCS strategy.
For a similar setup, a company I worked for found this configuration useful:
all third party libraries (components etc.) go to a fixed location (C:\Delphi\name-version)
Delphi projects can be checked out from version control anywhere (drive C: or D: and folder name does not matter), as all projects and scripts use relative paths
all projects are sub folders of one main project folder so checking out this one will bring the Delphi projects and other relevant resources to the workstation, and a version control update is easy to do
we use a build script (written in Apache Ant) which sits in the main folder, and iterates over all folders to build the Delphi apps and run unit and integration tests against a development database server, to verify all changes work before checking in to source control
the build script can also be run automatically on a build server (Hudson CI) on every commit to see if something broke
And a note about component libraries: avoid package installation where possible, prefer creation of components at run time. If you quickly need to apply a fix to a five year old version of a project, uninstalling / installing a dozen of packages can become frustrating. At least for non-visual components, run-time creation is a huge time saver.
Checking in third party code in source control can be very helpful, for example to share fixes which are not yet available as new official releases. Best practices are covered in the Subversion documentation chapter Vendor Branches.
Plus, with Subversion you can use svn:externals to place a specific version (tag) right into a project directory structure. This can be used both with third party library and with your own source code, and makes dependency management easier and workstation setup easier.
p.s. the Ant build script defines the search paths for everything, so it is 'the reference' for all developers how to configure the IDE, where to put the third party libs and which compiler flags to use
p.p.s. your project sounds like a lot of fun - I am open for contract work :)
My team use virtualization and when we see back it was a real good move.
We use MacBook Pro laptops and VmWare Fusion, but I'm sure other packages work fine as well like VirtualBox or VirtualPC.
It is always a good feeling to know that when a new developer starts or an old installation got trouble it is just to copy a new VM image from the master image and the setup is exactly as the original. The master image is stored on a fast USB2-disk. Now when Thunderbolt and USB3 is coming it would be even faster to copy an image. And there is no real concern about performance on a modern computer as long as there is memory. 8 GB should be enough to run 2 images in parallell. Another advantage of virtualization is that it is so easy to try What if scenario. Experiment with different configuarations and versions without any risk to disturb the real working environment.
Btw I also think that SourceSafe is crap... :-)
Somé tips:
Make one groupproject file for all the apps belonging to the project, each app in its own dir under the groupproj file
You should be able to specify which file types to include into your version control system. Make sure you set Delphi to write DFM files in text format.
You could tell Delphi to output DCUs in subdirs named 'dcu' under each app (less visaul clutter).
Third party stuff often insists on installing in distinct locations, there's not much you can do about it. Make a document describing how to setup a complete working environment and keep it up-to-date
Develop in virtual machines. A new developer gets a copy of the VM.
Maintaining for different Delphi versions? Rethink that, try to go to one version. If you absolutely must have two groupprojects and directory structures for each version. [I'm assuming you're not compiling the same app with two Delphi version, that's developer hell]
Delphi XE2 will output to different 32/64 subdirectories, that should give no problems.
This question is similar to this one, but not a duplicate because I'm asking about issues not discussed in that question.
I have a client-server project in Delphi 7 with the following directory structure:
\MyApp
\MyClientApp
\MyServerApp
\lib
There are 2 actual Delphi projects (.dpr), one each in the MyClientApp and MyServerApp folders.
The lib folder has .pas units that have common code to the client and server apps. What I'm wondering is if I should include those .pas files in the client and server projects? Or should I create a package in the lib folder which includes those units? Or should I just leave the .pas files sitting in the lib folder and not add them to any app/package?
What are the pros/cons of each approach? Which way is "best"? Is there any issue with having those units from the lib folder be included in more than one project?
Right now the units in the lib folder are not a part of any app/package. One disadvantage of this is that when I have my client app open in Delphi, for example, and I want to search in all files in the project for something, it doesn't also search in the units in the lib folder. I get around this by opening those units and doing a find in all open files, or using grep search (but I'd prefer a better solution).
I would also greatly prefer a solution where I will not have to go and open some separate package and recompile it when I make changes to those files in the lib folder (is this where I should use a project group?).
Sharing units between applications always carries the risk of incompatible changes done in one application that breaks the other. On the other hand, making copies of these units is even worse, so your approcach of moving them to their own subdirectory at least adds a psychological barrier to changing them without considering other programs.
As for adding them to the project files: I usually add some units which I frequently access (either for expanding or for reference) from the IDE to the project, and leave others out for the compiler to pick using the search path. I do that on per project basis, that means, some units may be part of several projects, why not?
Putting them into a package only makes sense, if you actually want to create a package based application, otherwise, why bother?
For more info on how I organize my projects and libraries, see http://www.dummzeuch.de/delphi/subversion/english.html
I dislike having files shared by projects. All too often, you'll be tempted to edit one of the shared files, and you'll either break something in the other project, or you'll forget that you have to rebuild the other project at all.
When the shared files are instead separated into their own library (package), then there's a little extra barrier to editing them. I consider that a good thing. It will be a light reminder that you're switching from project-specific code to shared code. You can use project groups to let you keep every together in a single IDE instance. arrange the library projects ahead of the executable projects. The "build all" command will build everything in order, starting with the first project.
Keep your DCU files separate from your PAS files. You can do this easily by setting the "DCU output directory" project option to send your package's units to some other location. Then put that destination directory on your other projects' "search path." They'll find the DCU, but they won't find the PAS file, and so no other project will accidentally recompile a unit that isn't really a member.
Having a separate package also discourages use of project-specific conditional defines. Those cause all sorts of trouble when you're sharing units between projects. Find a way to instead keep all project-specific options within the respective projects. A shared library shouldn't require project-specific modifications. If a library needs to act differently based on who's using it, then employ techniques like callback functions that the library user can set to modify the library's behavior.
I would need to have a very good reason to add shared code to a package. If you just have a few shared files stick them all in a directory called Shared. This should make it obvious the files are shared between projects.
Also use a good build tool to do automated builds so you will find out soon enough if you break something.
.bpl files are fine for components, but bring in serious added complexity for things like this, unless you have a huge amount of shared files.
I usually create a package with all shared unit, and just use the units.
If you do not explicitly mark "Build with run time packages" the package content (all used dcu's) will be linked to your project as any other unit.
I would only use runtime packages if you actually had two binaries that were supposed to run on the same physical machine and that shared some code. Keep in mind that runtime packages are mostly an all-or-nothing approach. Once you decide to use them you will also no longer be able to link the RTL and VCL units straight into your projects and will instead have to deploy those separately as well.
However, packages might still be a good solution to your problem when combined with project groups which is exactly what I'm doing. I hate having shared units included in multiple projects. Including the shared units in a package (but not compiling your actual projects with runtime packages) allows you to add that package to your project group so you (and the IDE!) will always have them easily accessible yet nicely separated from the project-specific code. Strictly speaking you don't even ever have to compile those packages. They can merely serve as an organisational unit in the project manager.
Note that for the Find in Files, you can also specify "in all files in project group"
We create via "Tools | Options | Environment Variables" Variables like that:
$(Sources) = D:\Sources\Delphi
$(OurLib) = $(Sources)\OurLib\Src
$(OurApp1) = $(Sources)\Applications\App1\3.x
$(ThirdParty) = $(Sources)\ThirdPartyComponents
We use these Variables in the project search path like that:
($OurApp1)\Src\Core;($OurApp1)\Src\GUI;($OurApp1)\Src\Plugins;$(ThirdParty)\JVCL
But this is broken (meanwhile fixed) since Delphi 2009 as these variables are not evaluated completely anymore (see QC #73276). So the files in the directories are not found by the compiler. A workaround: Use only complete directories in the environment variables.
We use this approach because on all developer machines and the build servers the files can be found and we only have to point $(Sources) to the right place.
We don't have anything in our global library path (except the Delphi defaults), because that wouldn't be in the version control and isn't reflected on other developers or build machines.
One problem is: If one unit in $(OurLib) decides to include another new unit maybe in a new path, all projects break because they don't find this new unit. Then we have to go through all projects and add the search path. (BTW: I really hate the search path editor...wouldn't be a simple memo field much better to edit than this replace/add/delete logic?)
Another thing we do is not adding many units to our project. Especially everything from $(OurLib), but we often have units like plugins which add functionality only by including them. For different editions of our products, we want to include different units. As Delphi always messes up $IFDEFs in the uses clause in the .dpr we help us by including units named like "IncludePlugins" which then include the units depending on IFDEFs.
But not including units in the project makes navigating to a pain. The units don't appear in the project, they are not found by Ctrl+12 (Show Units), they are not shown in code completion etc.
Has anybody a better way to cope with these problems?
We use only relative paths, any libraries are always below the libs subdirectory while the project source code resides in the src subdir. So our search paths always look like:
..\libs\library1;..\libs\library2\common;
etc.
All libraries are added as svn:external to each project, so checking out the project will automatically check out the libraries as well and the search path will always point to the correct version of the library for that project.
Not perfect, but it works most of the time.
I have to agree about the search path editor, it is even worse for relative paths because you must not use the "..." buttons otherwise Delphi will insert an absolute path.
We use standard drive mappings.
Our current project is always on W: regardless if it is a network drive or a substitute.
This works great.
When you need to work on a different project, swap the W: and you can continue.
You can copy the search path out to an editor, modify it and then copy it back.
Your search path is much too big. It should contain only the things you want Delphi to recompile with your project. You don't really want to recompile the Jedi VCL every day, do you?
I create a single directory where all compiled units go. Say, C:\dcu. Specify that as the "unit output directory" in all packages. My "search path," then, is always just this:
$(Delphi)\Lib;C:\dcu
The compiler finds everything it needs, and it never finds any source code. The only source code it ever sees is in the files that directly belong to whatever project I'm compiling. The project's own source directories don't need to be on the search path because all of those files are already direct members of the project. The compiler knows exactly where they are.
For me, all a project's source files go in a single directory. If you want separate directories for different parts, like Core and GUI, then I would put those in separate packages so I could work on them and compile them separately. Even if the final program doesn't use the resultant BPLs, packages are still a good way of segmenting your project and defining dependencies.
When compiling units for one project doesn't automatically compile units for all the other projects, you're forced to change active projects. It takes a moment of your time, but it also serves as a mental reminder that you're "changing hats," too.
Although you're producing just one product, that doesn't mean you should have just one project in Delphi. You should have at least one project for each executable module (EXE, DLL, BPL) in your product. Use project groups to manage multiple projects in a single IDE session. No unit should be a member of more than one project.
I don't understand your part about plug-ins and different editions of your project. When you say "plug-in," I assume you're talking about separate executable modules, like DLLs or packages, that the customer can choose to include or not. Couldn't you turn your different editions' features into plug-in modules that simply don't include in the lesser editions? Then you don't have to worry about conditional compilation of your project; just have several different installer packagers that grab different sets of plug-ins.
I have always found it odd that this has never been addressed adequately. I suggested recently to David I that Delphi should allow the user to set up some sort of preferred development structure and that third party library publishers could be made aware of this so that they could automatically adjust their installers to install correctly in the preferred development framework. If the preferred development structure was stored in an XML file or similar, then, it could be copied from one computer to another on a development team.
As an alternative, it could make an interesting project to create a Delphi application that would allow a user to "refactor" their library installation in a high level way. You specify which folders on your system contain source or compiled components or whatever and where you want to keep source files or compiled units, hit Go and your system gets rearranged for you, while updating your Delphi environment so that when you start Delphi, it finds everything it should.
I've just recently discovered a way to have project specific environment variables in delphi builds using XE6, it's not quite as good as a full blown #define like in C but at least I can now have consistent search paths across multiple projects and create some shared option sets.
What I've done is setup environment variables in the same manner as the original poster and then override them in the dproj or optionset.
The BuildPaths.optset added to the project looks like
<Project xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/developer/msbuild/2003">
<PropertyGroup>
<SVN_Root>..\..\..</SVN_Root>
<SVN_Riemann>$(SVN_Root)\Riemann</SVN_Riemann>
<SVN_Library>$(SVN_Root)\Library</SVN_Library>
<SVN_ThirdParty>$(SVN_Library)\Third Party</SVN_ThirdParty>
</PropertyGroup>
<ProjectExtensions>
<Borland.Personality>Delphi.Personality.12</Borland.Personality>
<Borland.ProjectType>OptionSet</Borland.ProjectType>
<BorlandProject>
<Delphi.Personality/>
</BorlandProject>
<ProjectFileVersion>12</ProjectFileVersion>
</ProjectExtensions>
</Project>